Online Communication Offence Arrests

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, for securing this debate and for his compelling opening speech.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right for us. Recently, the future of free speech on the internet has become a contentious topic in the United Kingdom. It is right that we examine the implications of this trend for our society and democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, has also raised interesting questions regarding the Afghan super-injunction. I cannot go there today.

In 2023 alone, the police made 12,183 arrests under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Of those arrested, fewer than 10%—some 1,119—have been convicted and sentenced. The criteria for arrest appear seriously flawed. Police are wasting their own time.

Freedom of speech is a right of the utmost importance, but I acknowledge that it is not unqualified. Under the previous Conservative Government, the Online Safety Act created new offences for false and threatening communications online. Its prohibitions, if properly and sensibly applied, are sensible. They include content relating to child sexual abuse, extreme sexual violence, extreme pornography, the promotion or facilitation of suicide, sexual exploitation and promoting terrorism. All of that is obviously right. Our concern should be to criminalise violence and words leading to acts which harm our citizens, but not merely what offends some people. That includes blasphemy or so-called blasphemy. At a meeting with President Trump and Vice-President Vance, the Prime Minister defended the United Kingdom’s stance on freedom of speech. He promised to protect this right for a very long time, but is that being done?

The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, made compelling observations about non-crime hate speech. As I have shown, thousands have been arrested and questioned for messages that have somehow upset others but have not ended in conviction. Our police must be getting too many things badly wrong; that must cease. Let me give an example. Earlier this year, Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine were arrested by at least six police officers. They had expressed concerns on a WhatsApp group about their daughter’s primary school. The chief constable later conceded:

“With the benefit of hindsight, we could have achieved the same ends in a different way”.


Did they really need hindsight to see that sending six police officers to a suburban house was unnecessary? This case raises serious concerns around the treatment of those arrested. It raises questions about the thoughtless interpretation of legislation. In that case, and in many others, did no senior officer ask: “Is this really criminal activity? Do we need to send six officers?”

We on this side of the Committee are clear that free speech is being mispoliced. This is serious. Those in authority must cease intrusive bullying and we, as legislators, must act to prevent this continuing. As I have explained, the intentions behind the current legislation are worthy and legitimate, but let us all remember that the way to hell is paved with good intentions. We must be free to provoke, to challenge, to dissent and, within reason, to offend. We rightly pursue the removal of harmful and dangerous content online, but the ability to speak freely is a defining pillar of our democratic society. In common law, everything is permitted that is not forbidden by law; that truism goes back to the 19th century and Dicey.

Is the Minister confident that police resources are being directed properly in this field? Will the Government issue guidance to ensure that, while probable online offences are properly examined, freedom of expression is robustly protected for all United Kingdom citizens? I hope that the Minister will set out what the Government intend to do to restore public confidence, to uphold the law as it was intended and to ensure that freedom of expression is protected in the United Kingdom.